Agreement and clitics differ in that clitics cannot be resumptively bound in a relative clause construction.

readmore

The following example shows that clitics cannot be resumptively bound in a relative clause construction:

Example 1

*Hy, dy't er gjin siler is

he who he no sailor is

He who is not a sailor

The -st suffix, on the other hand, can easily occur in such a construction:

Example 2

Do, dy't.st gjin siler bist

you who.2SG no sailor are.2SG

You who aren't a sailor

Interestingly, the -o suffix cannot enter this construction, confirming its clitic status, as is borne out by the ungrammaticality of (3):

Example 3

*Do, dy't.st.o gjin siler bist

you who.2SG.you no sailor are.2SG

You who aren't a sailor

For completeness' sake, it should be mentioned that the Frisian Language Corpus also contains instances of 2SG relative clauses in which there is no agreement on the complementiser, such as the following:

Example 4

Do, dy't my yndielt by de lju, dêrst net fierder mei komst

you who me categorises with the people which.2SG not further with come.2SG

You who categorise me with the people whom you do not make any progress with

Although such examples are found in established writers, the phenomenon has the feel of an interference.